Chappy Cell Tower Plan Sparks Renewed Debate

Plans for a permanent wireless cell tower on Chappaquiddick have sparked renewed debate on the small island, which has long struggled to acquire more reliable cell phone service.

The proposed 115-foot AT&T tower at 14 Sampson avenue is opposed by some abutters, who cite concerns about safety, location and aesthetics. But other residents and town emergency personnel say improved cell service is vital and back the plan.

The tower is currently under review by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission as a development of regional impact. It will replace a 104-foot temporary tower at the same site. The commission and Edgartown planning aboard approved the temporary tower in April 2016 amid similar debate.

Last week about 20 people attended a second public hearing about the project at the commission office in Oak Bluffs.

Stephen Tirrell, whose home abuts the property, asked the commission to take a look at other locations.

“AT&T is a multinational corporation that you’re going to allow to set up a business in a residential neighborhood here on Martha’s Vineyard, Chappaquiddick, a place where people come to vacation, to see wildlife, to see the beautiful ocean,” he said. “If you woke up in the morning and looked out your bedroom window and there’s a cell tower, what would you think.”

Tower has sparked opposition among some neighbors. But it has strong backing from public safety officials who say Chappy's lack of service is a genuine concern.
— Mark Alan Lovewell

He added: “I’m a cancer survivor. To have this thing put next to me, it scares the hell out of me.”

But Chappaquiddick resident Bob Gurnitz had another view.

“We heard from the lawyer from AT&T that this isn’t going to go on forever . . . no other carrier is willing to take the lead,” he said, noting that the issue has been studied for seven years. ““We’ve heard from both police and fire chiefs that coverage is essential and in my opinion we have no choice but to go forward and best still do that while AT&T has an interest.”

According to the commission, the multi-carrier monopole tower will be built by AT&T with a slot for Verizon and another carrier. It will replace the temporary tower at the site, as well as an 84-foot tower on the same site that is operated by MV WiFi LLC. The MV WiFi antennas will be moved to the proposed new tower.

The Sampson avenue property is owned by Robert M. Fynbo.

The proposal for a permanent cell tower comes after years of discussion about bringing improved cell coverage to Chappy. For years the town struggled to attract interest from cellular carriers.

If the project is approved by the commission, it will also require a special permit from the town planning board.

AT&T representatives at the meeting said the slightly shorter temporary tower was meant to provide short-term coverage.

“AT&T will not invest in a permanent facility that will not allow it to meet all its coverage objectives,” outside counsel for AT&T Brian Grossman told the commission. He said the company has been working with the town of Edgartown to provide better service for public safety.

“Don’t punish AT&T for being willing to step into the void which no other carrier was willing to do,” he said. “If AT&T folds its proposal, no Verizon proposal is coming on the property.” He said Verizon is willing to put antennas on the tower to provide network coverage, but will not build the tower. The additional 10 feet on the permanent tower will benefit the network and allow other providers and wi-fi antenna to move to the tower, Mr. Grossman said.

The design of the permanent tower, which will have antennae and other radio equipment stemming from the main structure, was a source of debate. AT&T said a utility pole with antenna concealed inside the tower was not feasible. Company representatives offered an alternative proposal for a monopine, a pole with extending antenna designed to look like a pine tree. Some members of the audience gasped and laughed when pictures of the monopine rising above the treeline were shown on a screen in the meeting room.

Dan Goulet, an engineer representing AT&T, said the Sampson avenue property was the most feasible site of three areas identified during a site analysis. He said the location provides the most reliable coverage to the most residents, in addition to covering public areas like beaches and complying with the town zoning bylaw.

The location in a residential neighborhood was a chief concern.

“There are better places, better alternatives,” said Dana Strayton, who said she lives 178 feet from the tower. “We’re asking them to find a location that works for all the people on Chappy and provides safety for as many people as possible.”

Her husband, Robert Strayton, said he found fault with information in AT&T’s analysis and said a permit was never granted for the original wifi tower built on the site.

“The site fails on so many levels,” he said. “To approve this site is very problematic.”

Others urged the commission to approve the proposal, including Edgartown IT director Adam Darack.

Mr. Darack said the town is focused on cell phone access for public safety. “I don’t care if people can necessarily check Facebook on the beach,” he said. “But from the town’s perspective it’s saving lives and allowing our first responders to communicate, so the town is happy with that.”

Kristy Rose, the administrative assistant to the selectmen who has property in neighborhood, said not all neighbors are against the cell tower. “I would be very happy if it was there,” she said.

“I’ve watched the Chappy cell phone committee try in vain for several years to get some interest in town property, to get them to build a tower,” she said. “This is our one chance to get cell phone service on Chappaquiddick and I think it’s really important.”

Comments (4)

Leo Johnson , Seasonal

I hope the discussion will be more far reaching than the scare tactic of AT$&T pulling out.
In previous town meetings other locations that are town-owned were identified. So there are other potential locations on this Island for this cell tower, why can't the MVC and ATT talk about these other possible locations on Chappy? The Town owns several other pieces of land. I think it was a quote by Adam Schiff of the mVC who was really nailed the heart of this --- "It is not about whether Chappy should have cell service -- it is about where it should be located".
Placing it smack dab in the only small-lot neighborhood on Chappaquiddick (.25 acre lots) makes no sense whatsoever and almost feels predatory. Over 2/3 of the entire Island is woods, meadow and remote. Let's not endanger Chappy citizens, keep talking about a location that represents a more balanced solution!

The best way to kill this which many Chappy people want is to keep talking about it and not doing anything. Stephen Tirrell does not like it and put his house on the market. He now has a buyer for his house so it seems some people do not care about the tower. Others who moved next to the existing tower recently are like people who move next to a church and complain about the bells. Build the tower now.

Rob Strayton, Chappy
I couldn't agree with Leo more. There are literally hundreds of places a tower could be sited on Chappy (425 locations, according to AT&T's own application, to be exact). Placing a tower in the midst of a densely populated, and least affluent, neighborhood not only feels predatory, it IS predatory. Placing a tower somewhere else on Chappy will not deprive anyone of service! These people that say we need a tower on Sampson Ave to serve the Enos Lots are either flat-out lying to you, or simply do not understand the issue. I literally live in the shadow of the tower and I do not have AT&T, in fact, my cell phone connects to the North Rd tower. That is 7 miles away (on 4 acres of land, btw)! A cell tower does not need to be next-door to provide service. Moving the tower a half-mile, into the woods, onto higher ground not only doesn't deprive anyone of service, it, in fact, IMPROVES coverage over a larger area! Larger coverage area means better public safety for more people, and not just on Chappy, but in Katama, along Norton Point and South Beach and the waters surrounding Chappy. Moving the tower not only makes sense from a social, economic and public health perspective, it makes sense from a PUBLIC SAFETY perspective too.

The facts around this proposal are:
1.) a tower somewhere other than Sampson Ave does not deprive anyone of coverage on Chappy, and in fact provides a larger coverage area providing service to more people and providing more complete public safety for everyone on Chappy
2.) a tower somewhere else limits the social, economic, health and safety implications for this most densely populated neighborhood
3.) moving the tower to one of the two other leased properties is more compliant with the bylaws of the town
4.) placing the tower on one of the other leased sites on Chappy minimizes the impact of a tower to everyone on Chappy. It creates the least harm and does the most good and for that reason alone, SamspsonAve is the least appropriate location on Chappy to site a cell tower. Sampson Ave fails to meet the safety objections we should all demand for such a massive industrial project on this small rural island.